Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Us 11, San Francisco 3, Davis 2, Cca 1, To Do 1, Lav Co. 1, Mta 1, Pg&e 1, Our City 1, Mr. Kelly 1, Subcontract 1, Lafco 1, Mendoza 1, Eric Brooks 1, Juliet Ellis 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 15, 2012
    10:00 - 10:30am PDT  

if we went back to the initial people that did the two surveys. would we know that? >> i think the cost would be about the same. the timing would be the problem, then, because we don't have that firm under contract at this time. if we -- if we authorize the contract that's before you on item 8c, we could sub that portion of the work to a firm. but i think that would be the quickest way to procure that service. >> that would be quicker -- >> than a new contracting process to procure that service separately. >> not quite clear. in other words, 8c would be faster than going back to
old -- >> right. the farm we used before is no longer under contract to us, so we would have to either have a new contracting process that would result in a new contractor performing the work, potentially the same -- perform the work in the past. or under the contract that's before you as item 8c we could ask that the -- that survey work be subcontracted to the firm we identify. a firm. sorry. >> davis and associates do their own survey work? >> i don't know. do we know? no. i'm told. >> they would have to subcontract, in any event. >> it is my understanding they would have to subcontract in any event, yes. >> can i -- i just want to make sure i understand. so we talked about coming up with a plan, right?
now i'm sort of hearing you would like for us to do a new survey before we come up with the plan to help inform the plan. is that what -- >> that is what i'm saying. >> it would take longer to roll the program out, to do that. i think what we wanted is come up with a plan with different options, which will include that as well. and as mayor mentioned that he really wanted us to come up with a very robust plan before we do anything. i think he made that clear to us that he wanted to make sure people volunteer into the program. at least what i'm suggesting to you is that let us come up with a plan that will achieve the mayor's direction and the
board of supervisors and really come up with something that hopefully meets everyone's recommendations. >> mr. kelly, how can we come up with a plan without knowing who is going to be opting into the plan. >> part of the plan would be to strat guise how we do that. at the end of the day we have to reach out with everyone to identify who would volunteer into the program. the question is how do you best penetrate and get that information. one could be polling, one could be grassroots. we need to talk about what is sort of the best way to do that as part of the plan. i agree we definitely need to do the polling. how do you do it in a strategic way. >> juliet ellis, assistant general manager for external affairs. i think the conversation to
me is reflective that there is no road map or concrete plan of a detailed preenrollment allowing folks to identify they are interested prior to launching phase i, which would be the targeted opt-out, based on the maps that you have soon before you. i think the recommendation from staff is that we move forward with the contract in that we need additional capacity to come up with -- our initial approach with the cc program especially prior to conversation with the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and several of you was not that we would do this preenrollment approach first. so with this additional layer the question is who are we going after in that first wave of looking for customers to identify their interest in the program. is it that we are going after green businesses, are we going to go after large-scale customers, are we going to go deep in
precincts that are dark green in the map. part of what we are looking for with davis and associates team is help us think through. what is the best way to saturate and how does that phase in the rollout based on precinct maps. we will come back and it will say maybe additional polling to see if green businesses interested, is that the approach that would give us the biggest ability to hit that 30 megawatts, or is it another approach. so what is the best plan to hit success. if they say we need to do additional polling, we come back and there is enough capacity on the contract to do kind of the implementing
of the plan. but the contract was to develop what is the strategy to roll out cca and how do we do implementation. direct media buys, in addition to grassroots door knocking, et cetera. we are happy to come back on a monthly basis. i appreciate the feedback on a realistic time line. based on them getting the rates under them it will take more than 30 days to come back with the plan but hopefully you can feel comfortable if you limit how we roll out the task, we can do that then come back. laugh co. has asked us to come back with what the outreach and education strategy will be and mayor's office has asked us to come back and present. there's lots of interest on how to roll this out. we will need additional support to come up with that plan. >> if i understand you properly, you are suggesting that what would
be most useful is for the 100,000 increment to be approved. at this stage it would be premature to decide upon what if any surveying we need to do next? >> i do. i think we are not ready to do polling. the question is where and how. i think the strategy will determine are we going to target the private sector and businesses or larger scale or target and do polling going deeper into precincts where we think there are interests. i don't think there is an answer. sufficient with resources at hand, developing strategy and road map and moving forward with that strategy, whether it requires us to do focus groups or polling probably makes the most sense. we are open to doing whatever the strategy that participating and developing tells us, that would be my recommendation. >> the most evolved recommendation from staff
is we do the amendment that you had suggested with 100,000, and that the product of that would determine when they come back with a recommendation for what to do next and how much money that would cost. >> yes. so we could come back after the plan is developed, present that, get blessing from you all from lafco, brief the mayor who is also interested. hopefully not just have you approve the contract for each component but we come back on a regular basis to give you an update on the progress of implementing the program. >> yeah, and i'm very concerned about the time line issue, the schedule issue too. we have a mandate from our supervisors to move forward with this program with the understanding we are rolling out next year. it is going to be tight. >> yep. >> to get the plan together, to get this contract in place, it is going to be tight. i want to go on record
saying we will do our best to comply here with what the city has asked us to do but it will be a challenge. >> yep. >> my last remark, i will vote in favor of this amendment, the resolution. but i would like to add publicly that i can't believe that we sent this forward to the board of supervisors with all of these questions. all of these unanswered situations. it is really a black mark on this commission to do so. that now all of the sudden we have to backtrack and get all this information put together. it is too bad. it is where we are. so i will make the motion, as amended. >> first of all, we have an amendment on the floor,
which has been moved. >> okay. then we have another amendment? >> sorry? >> there is one amendment. i moved it. >> it moved it. >> you have put the -- >> 100,000 task order amendment. >> right. >> with a note date for returning, okay. >> as has been drafted. >> right. if you want, i can read it again with the -- >> why don't you do that. >> with the 100,000. it would be provided staff will return to the commission for further authorization prior to issuing any task orders beyond an initial task order with an expenditure of not to comedian $100,000. that would be period. >> okay. so we have -- >> so i would like to make a motion on the amendment.
>> it has been moved. >> it has been moved. >> the commissioner moved it, you would like to second that. >> second that. >> discussion on the amendment? >> i just, before we adopt, i just want to add to black mark a gold star, because i'm very proud of this commission for having moved forward this important initiative that is going to hopefully get us to the greenhouse gas emission reductions and climate change mandates we are facing, barreling down from disdain, so i want to add a gold star to the black mark. >> okay. >> accepted. >> is there any public comment on the amendment? >> i'll sorry, i feel like i should add a little. eric brooks with the san francisco green party and local grassroots organization, our city. i think it is -- i think you are using a careful approach, that is good.
i would also speak to the gold star side of the equation that -- keep in mind the reason the board ended up adopting this with amendments that changed it is that there was a massive effort by what we can call our opposition in the energy game, pg&e, to really shake the trees. so it wasn't as much as you as commissioners sent something half-baked but something that was pretty well-baked. it got hammered. we were forced to make amendments to respond to that hammering. with that said some of those amendments are positive.
. >> will want be happy with that at all because that will put us in that same territory where it's an opt in even though it's legally not an opt in and hard enough to get customers in at
the beginning if we're making that aggressive and how they respond. we want to do good study work and learn about them and need them excited about it but we need the incumbency factor and this is where you're in and do they want to stay in and for the next six months they can think if it's good for them or not and rather to be in the proactive phase an a opt in and be careful of that territory. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none i will add my points. up to this point we have been trying to figure out what official san francisco wants us to do, and there have been a of people involved in
that. it's been the commission. it's been lav co. it's been the mayor. during implementation it's use and we need to be engaged in implementation in a way that we haven't been engaged in the design of the program more exclusively and this is really a change in direction. needs to be a change to our approach to the issue that we need to be asking the tough questions. we need to make sure there is a plan that works and again meet the expectations that are out there realistically so i take it as a lesson rather than a scoring opportunity. on an amendment we have a motion and i second. we had heard discussion. all those in favor? >> aye. >> on the amended resolution could i have a motion? >> move. >> and second.
>> and second. any discussion? >> just one comment. you have to realize i sit in the finance chair. i think of things financially. that's all i have to say. >> thank you and we're glad you do. we have a motion. we have a second. we have no public comment. all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries and that was 8c. and this is going to be a quick meeting. madam secretary could you call item nine. >> item nine and possible action to adopt san francisco utilities rule of order. >> commissioners my intention is take this to the next meeting and i think it's appropriate
that we have a full commission. mr. pill cow asked for the opportunity to speak and while it's calendared if you have a comment we would love to hear it. >> thank you and i guess i am granted privilege to the floor with rule 18. >> and subject to the chair's discretion. >> that's right. thank you. just a quick comments on rules that you did not propose amendments to, rules 20 and 22 on the minutes and tapes of closed segs. you might want to consider to amend those not to refer to tapes but to audio recordings. i believe the sunshine ordinance talks about audio record tionz and many bodys are recording digital recordings and not on tape and so don't have to be physical tapes so that might be
something to look forward to amend the rules and not relate to specific tapes. i want to note and there are just a few of us that care about this and rules rate ten and as i recall this actually flows from the 1932 charter about rate setting where this commission has a two step process of fixing a hearing date in the future for setting rates, and then holding that public hearing and setting rates. the mta board for example does not have that two step process, and i think that's actually good in that you give -- fix a time first and distribute notices, and then told the hearing, so it maybe a bit archaic and a bit, you know, of extra work
involved, but i think it's a useful process, and i just wanted to mention that, and hope that's retained. that is actually what you're proposing as part of the amendment to rule ten but i wanted to provide a little -- >> that is for support of the proposal. >> it is am i am supportive of these changes. i think they're pretty routine. >> and you raise a good point on the electronic media. if we can just review that and make sure about that. we have changed the ways we do the minutes. i don't know if the rules need to reflect that but they're referencing the available video tape of the proceedings so if there is anything we need to say about that we should say it, so if we can take advantage of the next two weeks to cover that basis. >> and the commission retains discretion in the level of detail in the minutes as long as
they comply with the charter and the sunshine ordinance as to those required pieces of content. if there is anything further? sorry. >> i would like to say i was not on the commission in 1930. >> the record will so reflect. does the commission have any other comments on the rules of order? okay. then without objection we will continue this item until our next meeting. >> item ten approve revisions to the cost for project being delivered as part of the water system improvement program for additional cost of $13.4 million direct staff to get approval from the board of supervisors for the release of funds from the reserve. >> okay commissioners. we have the information in front of us.
any questions for staff. >>i would like to move the item. >> second. >> moved and second. is there any public comment? seeing none all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. item 11 please. >> item 11 authorize the general manager to have a memo of understanding and not two exceed $250,000 and the dur duration of 18 months. >> so moved. >> second. >> and seconded. is there any public comment? seeing none all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. >> item 12 discussion and possible action in accordance with the public utilities commission to nominate and elect officers. >> commissioners my intent is to continue this to the next meeting when we have a full
commission. that requires that we suspend -- we need a motion to suspend the rules of order. >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. is there any public discussion? seeing none all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries, and that will be continued to the next meeting and i would ask that it be put on the front of the agenda of the next meeting. okay. item 13. is there any additional new business for the commission? seeing none this meeting is adjourned.
>> regular meeting of the board of education for the unified school district for october 9, is now called to order. >> roll call >> miss fewer? >> here. >> miss mendoza, here. >> miss wins? >> here. >> miss ly. >> here. >> thank you. >> you